Here is where you can get the info and powerpoint from the recent webinar on the FAA RUlemaking. Seems the AMA is really pushing the "No rules for AMA members and no recreational use without the AMA" line. Seems to me they want to make everyone join the AMA whether they need it or not. The AMA has done nothing to "supervise" model aviation in its entire history so why should the FAA think they will do so if given that power? Sounds more like an AMA money grab to me. The AMA is doing nothing in this process for anyone but the AMA, this is not their NPO tax exempt stated purpose.
I seriously hate this attitude from an NPO supposedly being the voice for "all model aviation". Guess they need a way to boost their falling membership numbers. Nothing like a monolpoly without rules to make that happen. I honestly hope the FAA will tell the AMA to stick it and give us reasonable rules for all recreational users. IMHO The AMA is little more than an insurance company looking to make more money.
Comments
Actually the point is that the AMA is a small percentage of people enjoying this hobby in the USA. RC hobby indsutry gross sales was around $4B last I saw the figures (about 3 years ago). that would require AMA members spending close to $40K/ year. More likely that 14M spend $400/year. That would mean that only 1% of the RC hobbyists are in the AMA. Hardly a majority.
"and yet millions"
My bad. Should have done my homework. Point still stands. Sorry for the error. It bugs me to find errors elsewhere. No excuse.
What I would like to see is that the FAA add upto a 1200' alt. in appropriate air space instead of a the blanket 400' ceiling in section 3 of the ARC reccomendations and eliminate section 2 in its entirety.
I would also like to have them add provisions for independent inspection and licensing at reasonable cost for recreational use of turbines, aircraft over 55# and/or 100MPH as well as visually aided LOS (binoculars etc.) FPV and autonomous flight with RC over-rides and a 3000' lateral distance limit for licensed pilots.
I fully support the limitations of everything but "park flyers" within 3 miles of an airport per section 3. That is where the biggest safety risk lies.
Comment by Paul Marsh:
"So far, it's still a voluntary organization, and yet millions have voted with their pocket books over the years to make them numero uno."
Not even 1 million total members over 75 years. I'm almost the 948,000th member. Currently they have only 140K members... and dropping. Let us instead consider the billions that have pursued this hobby since 1910 (that is correct) as well as the millions, in the US alone, currently flying without the AMA! Seems not being in the AMA is number one.
Comment by Gary Mortimer
"Ah but the AMA says this http://www.modelaircraft.org/forums/tm.aspx?m=10959 so I could be wrong."
I believe the Federal Register timeline over unsupported statements from the AMA. The AMA hasn't been able to tell the difference between a period and a comma (AC 91-57) for the last 40 years. I'm not supprised that they can't understand Federal laws regarding rulemaking procedures.
I didn't say it was "a history". Yes it was 17 years ago, does that make it untrue?
As for a "history" of what I would call unethical behavior:
The AMA threatened to sue me in August for postng my opinions on an RC forum, which as they are an NPO I have the right by federal law to voice my opinion about them publicly. I had to get the IRS involved in order to get documents they are supposed to make available to the public within 30 days when requested.
That was this year, not 17 years ago.
Actually the only duty the AMA has is to uphold its stated purpose as a 501c3 NPO, their duty to members and "protect" their business interests are not part of the deal. If they want to run that way then they should start paying taxes (about $3.5M/year). They have a legal obligation to "The primary object of the corporation shall be to promote the educational and scientific aspects of model aviation." that is their only legal purpose according to the documents submitted to the IRS for 501c3 status.
Duane, that was 17 years ago. Hardly a history of sueing upstarts. Look, AMA has a right and an obligation to protect itself and the interests of its members. So far, it's still a voluntary organization, and yet millions have voted with their pocket books over the years to make them numero uno. Maybe there's a reason they're a monopoly and have survived all these years.
Sport Flyers Association circa 1993-94
"SFA was a family-run business. Approximately three weeks ago, SFA president Elliot Janas collapsed and died on a business trip to Seattle. In addition, last Thursday, SFA was served with another lawsuit from the Academy of Model Aeronautics -- at least their second, possibly their third. "
Talk about being lawyered to death. :(
Lots of controversy on this but even if the SFA was bad mouthing the AMA as claimed (the SFA said the AMA was harrassing their members) was the AMAso threatened that they needed to sue them several times? Couldn't stand on their own merits against a little upstart company?
A couple of the many articles are here and here.
"The last one went bankrupt fighting lawsuits brought by the AMA."
What organization was that?
Ah but the AMA says this http://www.modelaircraft.org/forums/tm.aspx?m=10959 so I could be wrong.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next